Neowin.net

lol woot microsoft FTW

"New" UI

Thanks for that link, interesting reading!

It seems to me that there is still quite a lot there to warrant the upgrade, but I'm not sure that much of it will be noticable to casual users. Aside from the shiny interface, I'm not certain that most consumers will really see that much difference.

Hey, thanks for that link! I get sick of hearing people complain about a lack of new features in Vista.

There are errors in that Wikipedia article. The search inside Windows Vista doesn't use the Indexing Service included in previous versions, and is only very distantly related at all. Instead it is the Windows Desktop Search 3.0 engine, simply with a different UI and access to a few platform capabilities only available on Vista.

Edit: I guess since it's a wiki I shouldn't complain, and should just fix it =P

Last edited by Brandon Live on 25 Jun 2006 - 20:12

While there are a lot of new features it's all very bells and whistles. Looking at it my reply to just about everything is either "don't need it" or "so what"! If they BS beta 2 wasn't made public everyone would have to be wondering what the f#ck the Windows team had been doing for the last few years????


Come to think of it I still am sort of................

It's not the lack of features that are the problem. It's the features that were promised 5 years ago and dropped because Microsoft can't get thier act together and finish Vista.

That is clearly an exaggeration. 5 years ago XP was not out yet and the Longhorn code name didn't even exist (it was Blackcome). Even 3 years ago when things started leaking out nothing was "promised." Sure it is a letdown, but don't act like MS was under contract to provide you with feature X.

Same here. I wish people would remember all the new cool features going into Vista like WGA, Live ID auth, and embedded DRM.

Yes, It's more stable though, but that's hardly worth $200 or whatever.

If you think that, you don't know much about Vista.

No bangbang he just doesn't believe the hype that it's worth it to upgrade

Here's a link you should read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

That link has already been reguritated several times by you. You can stop now.

How bout no. It's interesting that you don't say that to the people posting the same "Vista is just XP + x" crap over and over again. Obviously you have a grudge or something. Grow up.

[quote=PCyr said,#5.6][quote]Obviously you have a grudge or something. Grow up.[/quote]


And you never do, huh?

I definately have held grudges, however I don't act out on them by acting like a child. In any case, nice way to excuse your actions by pointing at other people.

Or you can read the article and find out that it was dropped completely and also realize that Microsoft gives out updates for free.

They're not "free". You first need to pay for the new OS, and the updates are more of security updates (from the XP experience), and a little functionality here and there. They're always something that should have been there in the first place, if you think about it.

Apple has it easier in that they dont have to cater to 100's of other manufacturers who need to produce hardware for the OS. They cant simply announce the featured 6 months before release and hope manufacturers will have quality compatible hardware out by the time Vista ships.

But in what way does this apply to WinFS? Hard disks are standardised hardware.

It would have applied to software developers but wouldnt it? I'm sure it would but even if not, I was just responding to why MS does have to list much of the functionality in advance. May not apply to every feature but for many it does.

Microsoft can do whatever it wants to whom ever it wants. They are in total control. Don't like Microsoft? Tough, get over it. Pay extra to fix bugs bother you? Tough, get over it. Can't roll out a decent product, much less on time? Tough, get over it.

It's plain to see what happens when one company controls everything. Competition is the key to quality, product support, and product advancement.

There is no competition to Microsoft and look at what we have........

You could buy a Mac to promote competition. Plus you'd get your Vista features years ahead of time!

I have to agree on this one. If MS *would* have done something .NET heavy in their original Longhorn plans (at least what I've heard was the plans), what's often forgotten in how exciting a largely new user experience and all would've been, is that it would've made Vista's system requirements look ridiculous in comparison. It wouldn't just be about RAM, but also that managed code simply have a lot of CPU overhead as well due to these applications and services being much more safeguarded and running in "sandboxes".

you do know that WinFS is not a filesystem replacement? it simply runs ontop of the aforementioned filesystems? (NTFS only though, i believe FAT isn't supported, or wasn't supported by winFS).

WinFS stands for "Windows Future Storage", so you would still be using plain old NTFS underneath.

"you do know that WinFS is not a filesystem replacement?"

Well now, if someone were to read the article, how would they know that, seeing as the first sentance of said article goes something like this...

"Going back to the early days in the development of what is now known as Windows Vista, there has been the concept of a new file system known as WinFS"

I know it's not, and you know it's not, but it seems that every article I ever read about it refers to it as such.

thats true, i think many people are getting confused by the FS part of WinFS (thinking File System rather then Future Storage). The Mis-information is probably spread by poorly researched articles and/or the confusion of the name in general.

Other operating system use technology from the 80's too.

No, WinFS was pulled from the Vista release back then. However at that time MS said they would release WinFS in a service pack for Vista. Now it appears even those plans are dead and we will not see WinFS for Vista at all... or at least not included in the price of Vista.

You forgot about the re-written audio stack and stuff.
Under the bonnet, Vista is actually quite an improvement, it's just the kind that your average Joe user probably wont notice or care about =/

So in other words to the average consumer it is a new interface. The shell under XP can be customized with third party extenders, a number of instant search engines are available, and widgets are available as well. I will admit that it does look sweet under Vista compared to XP, but most people will not care.

Further, some applications seem to be complete ripoffs of OSX. Does Microsoft really need to include Windows Mail, Windows Photogallery, Windows Calendar, Windows Collaboration, and Windows DVD Maker. Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player 11 also seem to be inspired by Safari and iTunes. For what its worth, at least Media Player 11 actually looks nicer than iTunes.

I currently run my XP system in less priviledged mode so I am not all excited about User Account Control. I do, however, look forward to less problems at work. Some of the digital rights management stuff scares me.

Some interesting features: the Monad shell (add-on download), Unix subsystem, Windows Backup (imaging), BitLocker, new audio stack, new tcp/ip stack (IPv6, elect), support for Mt. Rainier, and moving the UI out of the kernel space.

I would like to see workplaces (virtual desktops) going to be native, universal package management, focus on the 64bit edition, and Unix as an option all all system like the CMD command prompt.

Pretty much all those apps you claimed are Apple ripoffs were in XP and many date back to before XP (with different names). WMP's interface has been largely how it is now since around version 7. IE's interface is just IE without the bar at the top.

Yes they must be included or people will complain
question about your privledged mode, do most of your applications work?
I was thinking about configuring my XP system.

:rofl: hahaha in that case.. that is one expensive box your buying!

Yes, because WinFS is the only feature of Vista.

well I said this earlier but Apple only has Apple releasing hardware for MacOS so they can keep any hardware requirements internal to the company. MS doesnt produce it's own hardware so it's very important for them to disclose information early on about what the OS will do and what drivers and hardware are needed well in advance. That said they cant guarantee these reqs wont change but they need to give vendors advanced notice regardless.

I would imagine that since they are dropping it completely there will be no XP version either.

That's quite a shame, seeing as such a feature was one of the few things keeping me 'windows faithfull' so, i suppose i'll buy myself one more PC then go over to the mac side..

ho hum..

Out of many major upgrades, dropping 2 or 3 is dropping is "everything"?

I agree with you. All these people saying things like "but its SOO much more secure" and "but it has a new audio stack!" kinda make me laugh now. Does it matter how the audio works? Seriously, unless you are a driver developer it doesn't really make any difference at all. As for the security, well only time will tell there. I will not be running out and picking up a copy on launch date just because of a new audio stack and supposedly better security. After all XP was apparently "SOO much more secure" and XP SP2 was "SOO much more secure". I am getting a little tired of hearing that its "SOO much more secure" each time. To be honest if you have to keep saying that your new version is so much more secure than you old one, over several versions, it looks like you never live up to your promise.

"Does it matter how the audio works? Seriously, unless you are a driver developer it doesn't really make any difference at all."

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, have you even used Vista? Every individual program has it's own seperate volume control now for one thing. Try doing a little research before going off on a ridiculous rant.

"You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, have you even used Vista? Every individual program has it's own seperate volume control now for one thing."

Um, have you even used a computer? Every individual program that has anything to do with sound (playing music, games, video) has it's own seperate volume control already. Talk about a ridiculous rant. Geez.

"Every individual program that has anything to do with sound (playing music, games, video) has it's own seperate volume control already."

No they don't, you are completely wrong. Another person spouting off about stuff they know nothing about.

http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archiv.../15/504158.aspx

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews...ctp2_volume.jpg

Yes they do, and no, I'm not wrong at all, much less completely wrong. Last time I checked, I could see no reason whatsoever for solitaire and minesweeper to have their own volume control - much less one that is completely seperate from the app itself. If bloat like that turns you on, more power to you I guess, but I certainly don't care to keep track of multiple volume settings for a single app.

Fine, keep making a fool of yourself but you ARE wrong and you obviously still don't understand it even though I gave you a nice informative link and even a picture. The reason a program like Solitaire can't have it's own volume control in XP is because the audio stack in XP DOES NOT support that. All those programs use the WAV output, you turn the WAV control down for one app and it affects them all. But I'm sure you know a lot more about it than Microsoft, the engineers and all the beta testers. You're just an anti-Microsoft troll and even in the face of facts you continue your stupid blabbering. Well I'm done with you.

Last edited by TRC on 25 Jun 2006 - 21:25

I have Vista running right now and I have used every versions released to MSDN subscribers. Sorry to burst your bubble but why is the fact that every program now has its own audio control an amazing new feature? Are you telling me it took them 5 years to do that? As for the new built in programs they are too late to the market with them. When I needed a decent picture manager 3 years ago I found one, it now has all my photos setup how I like. I don't want to spend hours (days?) setting everything up again in a program which isn't as powerful as the one I use now.

When I use Vista it is like going from Windows 98 SE to Windows Me. Its different but nothing that is different really matters. Maybe you think the new audio stack is amazing however I don't think it is and I think Microsoft are desperate if they are trying to make you think seperate audio controls per application is a major new feature. I am sure it is great for the very small, yet very vocal, group of users who seem to love it online however for the 99.99999% of other users they will never even know you can adjust the audio per application. Hell most of the people I support at work don't even know you can disable the Windows sounds!

Out of interest I should my parents in law Beta 2 tonight. They have 2 XP computers at home and had a 98 and 95 system before that. They run their own business and have been using computers since the DOS days (infact they still have a system running DOS in their office!. They used Vista for about 45 minutes (they were on Google Maps looking for something) and had a little play with the system. When they were finished I asked them what they thought. They liked the UI except for the "see through bits" (glass! as it "made it harder to work out what was what" when they needed to click on things. They thought the new Explorer was "messy". While they liked the tabs in IT they said that it "had too much stuff going on" and that Explorer "was horrible to use". I agree with them. Vista is a big UI mess. There isn't any consistency. Load up Paint then IE and then Photo Gallery. They all have different interfaces! Windows has always been pretty good for consistency but now it is an awful mess.

Anyway I have written enough. I doubt I will ever change your mind regarding Vista and I don't really care anyway. You can pay £200 for seperate audio channels. Thats your business.

No one said the new audio stack was the only new feature. Yes it would be foolish to buy it for only that but there's a lot more to Vista and if you had followed the links people have provided in this thread you could read about all the other changes. Still no one is forcing you to buy it so if you don't want it don't get it, simple as that. Just stop whining about it.

I'm not whining. I am simply stating my opinion and my opinion is negative. I can't help it if I feel that all the interesting features from Vista are gone are the only things left are rather boring ones. As an "IT Professional" there are some features that interest me however as a "home user" as well, there is nothing that would make me want to upgrade and I am sure I am not alone in this.

Increased security and stability wouldn't make people want to upgrade? If not there's always the shiny bling bling, that always draws them in and believe me it will again. People will be flocking to Vista in droves for the new look alone. I'm much more interested in the under the hood improvements and even though some things have been dropped there is more than enough to justify the upgrade.